28 September 2011 Last updated at 21:41
Judge says the preservation of life is key
|The case was heard at the Court of Protection|
But a closer inspection of the 76-page judgement shows that Mr Justice Baker did not find his decision a straightforward one.
Preservation of life The woman, known only as M, suffered profound brain damage eight years ago after contracting a virus. Doctors have concluded that she is "minimally conscious", meaning that she has some limited awareness.Her family argued that she is in pain, got no pleasure from life, and would not wish to be dependent on others.As has been reported, a key reason for the refusal to allow M to die was because "the preservation of life is a fundamental principle."
Nikki Kenward, who fought back from near total paralysis after suffering a rare nervous disorder in 1990, said allowing the application would set a precedent that would allow patients such as herself to be legally killed.
‘You have to ask the question: are we going to kill someone who is aware of it?,’ she told the Sunday Times.
To remove hydration and nutrition, as in the case of ‘M’, an order of the court has to be applied for.
In the case of LCP, it is built into the protocol.
"Are we going to kill someone who is aware of it..?"